Dutch sovereignty under threat?

The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, requested explanation and actions on the placement of a Turkish origin boy with Dutch nationality  in a Dutch lesbian foster family and this was seen as interfere in national legislations, heavily attacked by the entire Dutch political spectrum. But a law that allows the US to invade Den Haag if there are American citizens prosecuted by the ICC passes between the lines and nobody ever did anything about it - is the Dutch sovereignty under threat? And by whom?  

Last week there had been some fuzz between the Netherlands and Turkey. The situation was the following: Dutch child protection agency had removed a Dutch-Turkish boy from his biological parents to a foster family several years ago. The court had ruled that the boy was facing mistreatment at home when he was a baby. He was placed with a lesbian couple.
Now 9 years later it became a diplomatic issue between the Netherlands and Turkey, as the biological mother had sought for help from the Turkish president Erdogan. The President was visiting the Netherlands a few days after he had said that this was outrageous, to place a Turkish Muslim boy with a lesbian family, as the values taught are contradictory. Also other people, mostly holding both Turkish and Dutch citizenship, and Turkish organisations started to mingle themselves in the debate.                                                                                              

The Dutch Minister of Social Affairs Asscher said he was ‘shocked’ by the words of President Erdogan. I wasn't. Prime Minister Rutte had stated correctly that this was a Dutch domestic issue as this boy’s mistreatment happened on Dutch territory while he held a Dutch citizenship. President Erdogan stated he expects Dutch authorities to explain future cases with Turkish citizens and to cooperate with the Turkish Ministry of Social Affairs. The government had stated it would look if that is feasible.

Many Dutch politicians responded, all in the way we expect from them. I guess I don’t have to explain myself further. Some called it an infringement of sovereignty. To me, it smells like an infringement of sovereignty as the Turkish President is involving himself with a matter of a Dutch citizen on something what happened under Dutch law on Dutch territory. I say it smells like that, because legally speaking it is probably not an infringement. The boy is also a Turkish citizen and his biological parents are Turkish. Hence, he is doing his job: supporting Turkish citizens and values. However, keep in mind what would have happened in Turkey if an European minister would have involved himself in a matter which is partly Turkish and partly foreign.

When I first read about this I became angry myself. How dare he involve himself with our domestic issues! And so did many of my countrymen. And I think we should be angry and show some attitude. The Netherlands should not budge for Turkey. Maybe an agreement could be sought on informing each other concerning people with dual citizenship, but it still is under Dutch law and that should remain the highest point of inquiry.

However, I think there are other reasons why the country turned ballistic. When you look at it as infringement of sovereignty, then it looks as a country with a different cultural background tries to influence (to say it in diplomatic words). Would European countries or specifically the Netherlands do the same when another Western state tries to involve itself in domestic measures? In order to answer that question I would like to turn to our good friends at the other side of the pond. The predecessor of the Netherlands, the United Provinces, was the first state to support American independence. There have always been friendly relations and just a funny fact: the first transatlantic internet cable was connecting the Netherlands and the USA, as a few other nations.

I would like to go back to 2002. The United Stated had involved itself in Afghanistan. One thing the US military was fighting for was the rule of law, as that could prevent extraterritorial entities to fight Americans or prepare attacks in countries. An international court had been established before to deal with potential criminals who cannot be prosecuted at home. This is the International Criminal Court, located in Den Haag, the Netherlands. The United Stated had signed the agreement but not ratified it. The USA was afraid that American officials and soldiers would be prosecuted in politically motivated court sessions. Side note: the fear that Americans could be convicted and therefore not wanting to cooperate with the court is an acknowledgement of Americans breaking international law. Why be afraid otherwise, right? Fair enough, not wanting to cooperate while fighting a global war, I tend to understand to a certain degree. Let's not be naive  and say war is not dirty. However, in August 2002 President Bush signed the ‘American Service-Members’ Protection Act’, also known as the ‘The Hague Invasion Act’. It gives the President all authority to take all necessary steps to liberate Americans imprisoned by the ICC. Also, it forbids American authorities to cooperate with the ICC. 

As the nickname of the Act states, it can lead to an American invasion of Den Haag. Not only is Den Haag the host of the ICC, it is also the seat of the Dutch Government. The Act gives the president the right to send troops to Den Haag in order to liberate imprisoned Americans. This would be a clear infringement of sovereignty. The right to use violence in the Netherlands lies with the Dutch police and Armed Forces. Or would the Netherlands have stored nuclear weapons at the ICC building in that case (just a little poke at the Iraq war 2003, it is hot news nowadays).

Thankfully it hasn't come this far. The US military has not been send to Den Haag and our government did not have to send our troops to fight allies. Nonetheless, the Act itself is an infringement of sovereignty. It is an announcement of using violence on another state’s territory. What makes it even worst in my eyes is that the Netherlands is an ally of the USA. The Dutch military has proudly serviced in Afghanistan and Iraq, next to their American “brothers in arms”. Also, the Netherlands has provided logistical support in the run-up to the Iraq war, letting the US Army use the Dutch railway to transport equipment from Germany to Dutch ports to be shipped to the Middle East.

Coming back to my earlier statement about the Dutch reaction to the Turkish President, I find it surprising how little responds there were and still are about the US Act. Compared to a statement by the Turkish President, the US legislation should have created outrage and a boycott of US products and a diplomatic rage in order to stay in the same proportion. No nothing like that. The government responded very mildly, stating it ‘is not proportional and they hope it doesn't get that far’. Opposition remained rather silent as well. When the Dutch military were requested to join forces in the Middle East, they were sent eagerly. Further, newspapers did not express outrage or even concern and it did not lead to a public debate about the relationship with our ally, who threatens with invasion.

I think the Act should have been put on the table, to negotiate a request for troops in exchange for full recognised sovereignty. We might have needed those troops to defend the country, right? Also, I find it strange that the Dutch Ambassador to the USA did not have to come back to the Netherlands. So it seems that there is some cultural hypocrisy about this. When another western state clearly steps on sovereignty it is accepted, while outsider party only hints upon it there is a scandal.

Although President Bush has left office and the Western involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan will end soon, the Act is still there. I would have loved to see our government stepping up against the US government on this issue and actually I expect that it is still a matter of discussion. I expect our ambassador to constantly remind the Americans to abolish this Act. I hope Prime Minister Rutte has put it up as a matter of discussion last time he met President Obama, though I doubt it. Because this is not the way allies treat each other. Just take into consideration that another state would adopt such legislation directed towards American territory, which would not be acceptable.

PS. Although we all love the change President Obama (Law major, former lawyer and Professor in Law) has promised but also his administration has not made steps to ratify the treaty concerning the ICC.